Harris Parrots Biden Again, Rejecting Strategic Steel Deal

On Monday, Kamala Harris mirrored President Joe Biden’s sentiments during a campaign event in Pennsylvania, a critical must-win territory, going against the proposal of U.S. Steel selling to Japan’s Nippon Steel. Many view her stand as merely parroting the White House’s disapproval of the deal that has been publicly stated for months. Her statement was made during a rally with union members, seemingly a mindless affirmation that U.S. Steel’s domestic ownership was crucial.

U.S. Steel is a historic company that, according to Harris, the U.S. should strive to keep American. While her pledge to always support steelworkers borders jingoistic rhetoric, it does call attention to the company’s impact on the labor force. However, it suggests a lack of comprehension about the potential global opportunities for U.S. Steel. It’s important to consider external investment, such as that proposed by Nippon Steel, can potentially elevate the firm’s capabilities and overall competitiveness.

The incumbent administration’s stance repeats Biden’s opposition to the planned deal, interestingly aligning with former Republican President Donald Trump’s view on the matter. But Harris agreeing with Biden could be interpreted as a lacklustre articulation of policy, given how typically she echoes Biden’s views. These facts underscore the lack of depth in her political acumen, often being overshadowed by Biden’s decisions.

These sentiments were conveyed amid a labor day rally in Pittsburgh, with a seemingly orchestrated chanting of ‘Thank you, Joe’ to Biden. The President’s acknowledgement of Harris as the only ‘rational’ choice for president in November reeks of self-indulgence. While he’s quick to credit his choice of her as Vice President as the ‘single best’ decision of his tenure, the lack of substantial achievements by the administration beg to question the accuracy of his claim.

The election rally marked a significant change in the race, offering Harris an opportunity to present herself in a new light, however, her apparent loyalty to Biden and his policies only perpetuates her characteristic lack of originality. Even her delivery, which focuses on expanding government programs to assist the middle class, reeks of recycled political rhetoric. Her agenda’s glaring resemblance to Biden’s platform paints a picture of a leader who doesn’t bring something original or revolutionary to the table.

Despite claiming the race would be close to the very end, Harris’ engagement at the rally felt like more of the same. Her second rally of the day, following Pittsburgh’s Labor Day parade, seemed to follow the established playbook, offering no new insights or promising proposals. On a larger scale, these rallies are not the break from routine politics that many Americans had hoped for.

While Harris’ solo campaigning in Detroit might suggest a renewal of strategy, her focus on the benefits of the union’s work does little to advance her narrative. Her insistence that every person in the nation has profited from the efforts of unions is a gross oversimplification of the complex labor market dynamics at play. Her statement appears to mask deeper issues such as income disparity, job insecurity, and blatant corporatism.

Harris presents her opposition to the sale of U.S. Steel as a show of support for steelworkers. Yet, one cannot help but critique the absence of a solid justification beyond vague statements of loyalty. Her stance publicly counters that of U.S. Steel, which upholds that the deal with Nippon Steel would be beneficial across all its stakeholders. Notably, U.S. Steel has publicly defended the proposed transaction as an opportunity to strengthen the American steel industry and its competitiveness, primarily bolstering resilience against China.

Nippon Steel responded confidently to Harris’ remarks, insisting that their acquisition of U.S. Steel presents an incalculable benefit for the American steel industry, its workers, local communities, and national security. This counters the skepticism implied by Harris and her campaign’s position. While Harris might be quick to draw on union support, her arguments lack the sophistication needed when dealing with such significant international business deals.

The Harris campaign hails support from David McCall, president of the United Steelworkers union, who lauds Harris’ decision as a display of her solidarity with steelworkers. However, it remains unclear whether the vice president fully comprehends the complexity of Steel’s global economic landscape and its impact on domestic markets. A more nuanced approach might better serve the interests of the actual steelworkers she purports to support.

Comparisons between Biden and Harris events highlight further issues. Harris seeks to distance herself from Biden, presenting her events as a breath of fresh air from the more contained Biden engagements. And yet, despite these attempts, her speeches continue to echo the same themes championed by Biden: capping drug prices, defending the Affordable Care Act, and aiding families with the cost of child care.

One claim Harris seems to make is a promise to fight inflated grocery prices. Yet, she trails behind Biden in this regard by calling upon tax cuts and incentives to encourage home ownership, as well as calling for an end to federal taxes on service industry tips. These policies, while potentially beneficial, don’t seem to approach the root causes of the issues they aim to solve.

Essentially, Harris continues to toe Biden’s line on major policy topics. This consistency, despite her efforts to assert herself as a political figure, further emphasizes her role as Biden’s echo rather than a strong, independent leader. Her redundant actions betray a stark reality; she remains tethered to Biden’s broader agenda without offering novel perspectives or strategic insights to influence major policy changes.